tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post1812659475530152984..comments2023-05-06T02:20:24.326-07:00Comments on Liminal Blather: God is smarter than youUjlapanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-71113498865268649712007-06-03T22:18:00.000-07:002007-06-03T22:18:00.000-07:00Robert, "Women already serve people."Don't men alr...Robert, <BR/><BR/><I>"Women already serve people."</I><BR/><BR/>Don't men already serve people too? Of course they do. But they also get the priesthood, because they are men. They even get it BEFORE they become men. And they get it before they become fathers, thereby fulfilling the same divine role women get as the only one available to them.<BR/><BR/>Let's move on to racism...Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-11467453314075615222007-06-03T20:37:00.000-07:002007-06-03T20:37:00.000-07:00SML,If that were the doctrine, then I see no reaso...SML,<BR/><BR/>If that were the doctrine, then I see no reason it would bother me. I really don't. Women being in positions of leadership don't bother me. I don't have a problem with women, as you seem to suppose. It just isn't that way. I've said it before: the priesthood to me (and even the offices of leadership you're focused on within it) is entirely focused on service. Women already serve people. Priesthood leaders act as agents of the Lord here, but they do not themselves truly decide, if you believe in the nature of revelation. But then, you don't anymore. Nor does Uj. I can point these things out a dozen ways, and it won't change what you feel. It won't make you rejoin, either. It just gives you more to contend with, but I see very little new information coming from either side of this matter.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-66425713527117006052007-06-03T20:30:00.000-07:002007-06-03T20:30:00.000-07:00She didn't use the word brethren. I took that from...She didn't use the word brethren. I took that from you two. She just said "They don't say enough about that, maybe."Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-76652530713337372712007-06-03T19:36:00.000-07:002007-06-03T19:36:00.000-07:00The BRETHREN need to say more about it? The fact ...The BRETHREN need to say more about it? <BR/><BR/>The fact there are "The BRETHREN" is the problem, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>It's the BRETHREN who rule, who decide, who preside, who are advised to exercise their authority with righteousness and service to others...it is the BRETHREN who know that their <I>"dominion shall be an everlasting dominion"</I>...<BR/><BR/>I'm not talking about them discussing how some women are treated poorly by their husbands and how those husbands need to remember to treat their wives, children, and pets with benevolence. I'm talking about the dominion of the men over the women, period. The entire church structure and everything we do at church revolves around your dominion. Every. Single. Thing. <BR/><BR/>I know it's difficult to look at the structure and find fault, especially if you are a man enjoying the benefits of the power you are granted to wield in benevolence over your family. <BR/><BR/>Imagine how difficult it would be if suddenly you had a church to live in where women did all the leading, and a woman was who you prayed to, and women were the only ones allowed to act in the name of Goddess. Imagine if those women were told often publicly to treat you better, because theirs is the power, and they thereby have a responsibility to treat those they preside over with love and tolerance. Imagine if only women were able to bless the sacrament bread, and were the only ones able to baptize others, and the only ones able to offer blessings to their children. Imagine if they were the only ones able to determine your worthiness. Imagine if you were taught from your youth up that you should support and embrace the system where women rule, or else you'd be sinning. <BR/><BR/>Would you enjoy that life? Honestly?Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-59705446641818758582007-06-03T18:08:00.000-07:002007-06-03T18:08:00.000-07:00Ironically, you two say that the church talks too ...Ironically, you two say that the church talks too much about it and thus reinforces the roles. My wife said to me, in discussing it today, how maybe the brethren need to say more about it.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-44763861160940889462007-06-03T15:41:00.000-07:002007-06-03T15:41:00.000-07:00And I have a difficult time showing or describing ...And I have a difficult time showing or describing to you all what exactly it does to a woman...what it did to ME to grow up at church knowing that I'm less important than men are. It's a tough thing to pinpoint, but it's real. It's reinforced in almost all aspects of church belief. Those prophets and General Authorities who give talks describing how men should treat their wives as if they are equal only reinforce the idea that we really aren't. <BR/><BR/>But whatever. I agree the horse is being kicked. Wonder what a better solution would be for the women of the church. Obviously just talking it over gets us nowhere, especially when most men at church don't see it for what it is, and most women embrace the system as their due, and what is expected of them by God.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-91436930968186714062007-06-03T12:39:00.000-07:002007-06-03T12:39:00.000-07:00I think the disagreement hasn't moved one inch on ...I think the disagreement hasn't moved one inch on either side on the matter, regardless of what the sides are. When no progress is being made in a discussion after it goes round and round like we have been, then I don't see a lot of point in continuing. I also don't like the turn it took, but I've been over that. I don't have a problem with women's self worth. I have a very high opinion of women generally. There are certainly women I have a low opinion of, but if we're talking in generalities and stereotypes, I think highly of women. But we're not really discussing that, either. Again, that's why it's a horse who's so beaten dead, kids are already using the glue made from him on their collages.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-25624314033435437012007-06-03T09:15:00.000-07:002007-06-03T09:15:00.000-07:00I apologize for my last comment. It came from fee...I apologize for my last comment. It came from feeling like men think the subject of sexism is a waste of time or pointless. I don't know if you actually feel that way, so I apologize for my comment.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-46275411966008971602007-06-03T00:11:00.000-07:002007-06-03T00:11:00.000-07:00Naw, we're pounding on women's self-worth. But if...Naw, we're pounding on women's self-worth. But if you think it's pointless, that's OK too.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-73026060096990960742007-06-02T21:38:00.000-07:002007-06-02T21:38:00.000-07:00Been away to the temple this weekend, no internet ...Been away to the temple this weekend, no internet connectivity, so I missed a bit.<BR/><BR/>The church is like smoking... interesting analogy.<BR/><BR/>As for the slavery things, it was already started to be cured because of economics and might well have gone away without a terrible war and tremendous bloodshed. The South was wrong to pick the fight, though, and was soundly punished for its error. That's a whole other can of worms to open, though, and I don't plan to find a can opener.<BR/><BR/>I do think SS's point was an accurate one, when he asked how a woman's potential is limited by her not holding the priesthood. If you're talking about temporal matters, then it might be easy to see it in that way, but this life is a small part of eternity, and women are not limited eternally by not holding the priesthood. I agree, though, that we're basically pounding on brick walls and there's no real point in bloodying our fists further.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-45912222881824589042007-06-02T16:09:00.000-07:002007-06-02T16:09:00.000-07:00You are right, SS. The church has many good thing...You are right, SS. The church has many good things to offer, such as community, togetherness, service, direction, and it offers ideal families to be together forever. <BR/><BR/>But to me it's the same as smoking: Smoking offers a calming effect, togetherness, social unity, fun. But.....those pesky harmful things about both cigarettes and the church matter to me. <BR/><BR/>They matter.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-35889412505490166482007-06-01T21:40:00.000-07:002007-06-01T21:40:00.000-07:00SML -I can see your point, and you make a good arg...SML -<BR/><BR/>I can see your point, and you make a good argument, but the obstacle here is trying to reason away faith and a testimony. I realize how you feel. I concede that from a secular point of view one would construe the priesthood organization in the Church as being sexist. But, that's leaving out the important element of faith and testimony. I'm afraid we're all slamming up against brick walls with this argument.<BR/><BR/>You and UJ have concluded what you've concluded about the priesthood. I wish you could see the goodness in the Church if not believe in it. I wish you could recognize the Church for the positive impact it has on the lives of members and non-members but you seem to be focused only on the negative.Bradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137736800774891196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-71735426723583072092007-06-01T20:31:00.000-07:002007-06-01T20:31:00.000-07:00SS ~If a few people in society hadn't stood up and...SS ~<BR/><BR/>If a few people in society hadn't stood up and pointed out openly and vocally about slavery and how it's wrong to keep slaves, then we'd still be running plantations and households with slaves.<BR/><BR/>I bet the slaveowners during slavery years said the same things you are saying: "How is their potential being limited? I give my slaves full ability to live up to their potential. They are <I>meant</I> to be slaves. It's in their nature to serve others. They don't know anything else. It's laughable to imagine a slave owning his own home, or running a plantation like I do! He'd never survive! Besides, he'd hate having to tell someone what to do, or to work harder. And what if he had to whip someone?! It's just not in his nature to do that. I have total faith that without slavery this country will fall. The South cannot survive without slavery to help maintain the cotton and tobacco harvests. Besides, my slaves don't mind working for me! I treat them with total respect and feed them well! MY slaves don't complain. They are perfectly happy! Just ask them!! I did ask, and they told me they are content. And why on earth would I want to question what works for me??"Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-3583868420878026742007-06-01T17:49:00.000-07:002007-06-01T17:49:00.000-07:00I'm not really trying to redefine sexism, or apply...I'm not really trying to redefine sexism, or apply a new definition to justify the Church or make myself feel better about women being excluded from the priesthood.<BR/><BR/><I>I am only offended by the transgression of sytemically limiting the potential of one human versus another based on an arbitrary generalization.</I><BR/><BR/>How is anyone's potential being limited? From what I understand based on eternity a man will be nowhere without a woman whether he holds the priesthood or not. I guess you could mean being limited from the potential to become bishops, presidents ect.<BR/><BR/>To you it may seem an arbitrary generaization, but I challenge your premise on that. That's your words and thoughts. How do you know it's arbitrary? I am saying there may be things about the Lord and the way he works that we don't undersand yet, and are not meant to understand at this time. I have faith that God has a reason for holding back preisthood from women, and it's a good reason. I don't see God as arbitrary. I have faith that someday that reason will be made known, and when it is made known it will be perfectly understandable, and people such as yourself are going to be standing there with mouths agape thinking, ohhhh. Same goes for polygamy, and the blacks, etc.<BR/><BR/>I think you have become too intellectual to be able to accept things on faith. If it can't be explained than it must not be true. That's fine. You have made the choice to rely on your thoughts and the philosophies of other humans. You find what you determine to be faulty with the Church or its past and have concluded yourself to be the final authority leaving no rooom for faith, trust, or testimony. <BR/><BR/>I hold out that someday these things will be explained, and will become understandable to us all. I look to the "fruits" that I see in the Church. I have two cousins that married black men who are active priesthood holders in the Church. I have had good talks with both men about the whole blacks issue and I can report that they don't feel discriminated against, and share my view that someday these things will be explained. Faith.Bradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137736800774891196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-59222604585312137882007-06-01T17:27:00.000-07:002007-06-01T17:27:00.000-07:00I don't care if you call it sexism or not, SS--I a...I don't care if you call it sexism or not, SS--I am only offended by the transgression of sytemically limiting the potential of one human versus another based on an arbitrary generalization. When that's based on gender, it's called sexism. If you want to define sexism as something else, I'm interested.Ujlapanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-82080068398737536262007-06-01T16:47:00.000-07:002007-06-01T16:47:00.000-07:00I wouldn't go so far to say that I conceded sexism...I wouldn't go so far to say that I conceded sexism is in the Church and that it's ok. I was conceding that under the definition of sexism you offer up than, yes the Church does appear sexist from the outside on a secular and intellectual level. My little bit about it's ok because the Church is true is my way of just saying that there are things in the Church that may not fit in with the political correctness of today's society. But, to those of us who actually believe in the Church, and are seeing things through our spiritual eyes can see that it is not sexist. The problem is we can't find the words easily to explain that. It's like the old metaphor of trying to explain the taste of salt to someone who's never tasted it before. That's why I've said over and over that it becomes a matter of faith and testimony.<BR/><BR/>I will give you the point. If you define sexism as excluding someone from participation merely because of their gender, then yes, under that simple definition I guess you can include women being excluded from holding the priesthood.<BR/><BR/>I don't see it as sexist. Am I wrong? Who's to say that my view point and experience is wrong? I fall back on my beief that God works in mysterious ways. We are not meant to understand all. Some things we must take on faith. Who knows? Maybe there is a female side to the priesthood that has not been revealed to us yet. Maybe the Lord is awaiting us as men to prepare ourselves for such a thing. If that ever happened people like UJ and SLM would just point to the fact that the Church "USED" to exclude women and are therefore STILL sexist.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe, the priesthood is like "The One Ring" You know how hobbits are more resistant to the possesing power of the ring, while men are more vunerable to its power? Maybe if women were given the priesthood they'd go mad with power like if Frodo had given the ring to Galadriel. "Instead of a Dark Lord you will have a QUEEN! More terrible and beautiful than the foundations of the EARTH!" And men are more like hobbits, better to handle the power and authority. Not because they are better beings, just because.<BR/><BR/>I can hear the blood shooting out of SML's eyes from here. = )Bradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137736800774891196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-61996169967205375742007-06-01T15:31:00.000-07:002007-06-01T15:31:00.000-07:00The fact that Scott mentions abuse victims in a ge...The fact that Scott mentions abuse victims in a general way suggests that he's talking about ALL victims, and all kinds of abuse. I certainly imagine he includes women who are raped. And Spencer W. Kimball did too.<BR/><BR/>So. What of it? The comments made by Scott and Kimball are harmful to some victims of abuse, period. If it harms even ONE victim of abuse, by implying to them in their mind that they are at fault, then it shouldn't have been said AT ALL. <BR/><BR/>Ugh. A man with the power to act in God's name should be able to know this without being told this.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-23715543616250280772007-06-01T13:10:00.000-07:002007-06-01T13:10:00.000-07:00You referred to the talk in response to a question...You referred to the talk in response to a question SS asked about when a GA suggested rape victims should repent. This talk did not suggest that rape victims need to repent, but that some abuse victims may have need to repent. By specifically citing the talk as if it referred specifically to rape (which it never did), then you miscontrue the assertion Elder Scott was making. That, to me, is inconsistent. You don't see it that way (as I've said, you're not changing your mind). You're also not changing your mind about the priesthood or the church, certainly not with regard to the rule of "males only". When I say you don't seem bothered by how you are warping the meaning of Elder Scott's talk. You don't seem bothered by suggesting that President Kimball meant a woman who gets raped is "guilty" because he said she might be better off if she'd died. You provide no context for the statement, and I suggested an alternative meaning. But again, I don't want to get into heated arguments. I really don't see a need for it. My points of rebroadening the discussion about abuse stems entirely from your use of a talk that was general in its scope. You act as if it was not meant that way by your statement right after the quote. That is my point in explaining what other forms of abuse or other victims Elder Scott could be referencing.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-42291051724546428192007-06-01T10:07:00.000-07:002007-06-01T10:07:00.000-07:00That analysis assumes he was speaking specifically...<I>That analysis assumes he was speaking specifically to rape victims.</I><BR/><BR/>The analysis makes no such assumption--<I>you</I> made the assumption. The following example will illustrate what actually happened:<BR/><BR/>SS, Uj, Robert, SML have a big debate about dog-owners not being given the priesthood. Uj mentions a talk by RGS.<BR/><I>RGS:</I> You should not own a hairy animal.<BR/><I>Ujlapana:</I> Poor dog owners.<BR/><I>Robert:</I> Dogs aren't the only hairy animals, you know.<BR/><BR/>Huh?<BR/><BR/>Female rape victims obviously fall into the scope of abuse. So I could discuss them in the context of RGS's talk. You have not demonstrated to me where I said that they were the <I>only</I> people being discussed.<BR/><BR/><I>You're not changing your mind, though.</I><BR/><BR/>On what?<BR/><BR/><I>And you don't seem bothered by your own assertions.</I><BR/><BR/>My invitation stands. Show me two logically inconsistent statements above (made by me, of course), and I will either retract or clarify one of them. I share my thoughts with others for this very purpose!Ujlapanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-60988445250012308412007-06-01T09:39:00.000-07:002007-06-01T09:39:00.000-07:00The reason I say you seem to think rape was the on...The reason I say you seem to think rape was the only form of abuse and that only women are victims of it is how you chose to analyze Richard G. Scott's statement about abuse. You specifically said, "See that, ladies? You have to--I mean "get to"--rehash your rape experience to a man."<BR/><BR/>That analysis assumes he was speaking specifically to rape victims. There is nothing in the talk to specify rape victims as his audience. He actually makes it clear in the opening that he was speaking to any victim of abuse. He doesn't even specify women. You took that statement and suggested he's blaming women. You also took the Spencer W. Kimball statement and assumed he was blaming women for being raped. Many rape victims consider suicide, and most of those I've known say the very words you're taking as an expression of guilt "I wish I were dead" or "I would rather have died." That statement seems much more connected to how terribly it assaults a woman than suggestive that we should wish she died. It is just a terrible act that can scar someone almost permanently. Because you chose to construe the statements in that way, it comes off that you assume the Richard G. Scott talk was aimed at rape victims, and specifically female rape victims. There is no such connection made by the talk itself, though. He could well be warning people just as I have variously suggested, that if they are part of the abuse then they should repent of their part and move forward.<BR/><BR/>You're not changing your mind, though. And you don't seem bothered by your own assertions. So be it. I'm ready to move on from this part of the discussion.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-5593782472230634482007-06-01T09:23:00.000-07:002007-06-01T09:23:00.000-07:00*Blush* "Exists" is the proper spelling. Oops.*Blush* "Exists" is the proper spelling. Oops.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-4772905510063093382007-06-01T09:15:00.000-07:002007-06-01T09:15:00.000-07:00You already know my vote is that the sexism that e...You already know my vote is that the sexism that esists in the church is wrong. Very wrong.<BR/><BR/>Did you know that women were not allowed for a large number of years (recently) to pray in Sacrament Meeting? Oy.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-58967937136710123592007-06-01T07:56:00.000-07:002007-06-01T07:56:00.000-07:00Robert, read my comments again. (That will take a...Robert, read my comments again. (That will take a while, I know.). Show me where I said rape is the only form of abuse or women are the only victims of abuse. I never wrote that. The whole context of this discussion is in saying that women, due to the obviously <B>human</B> tendency to gender stereotype, have their access to God <I>in some ways</I> limited to being through men. The point was that most people are more comfortable discussing sexual issues with the same gender, so of course I won't pick men as a case study in this discussion!<BR/><BR/>I know a lot about LDS Family Services. They are a good option for some people, to be sure. (The church pays on a need-only basis, by the way.) But this is all still failing to address the core point--either the church organization means that sexism is okay, as SS more or less conceded, or sexism is wrong and can be used as a moral law against which the organization of the church can be measured.Ujlapanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13040772399261340723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-24987076479974316472007-06-01T04:29:00.000-07:002007-06-01T04:29:00.000-07:00The vehemence had nothing to do with "men sufferin...The vehemence had nothing to do with "men suffering", Uj. It had to do with being characterized as a rape sympathizer by suggesting I blame a woman for having been raped. I do not. I think a young girl should be able to go to a party and have fun without fear of rape. If she chooses to get drunk there, it should still be a safe environment. It's terrible that it's not, but if she gets raped it is not her fault. She might've considered not going to the party alone, though, or leaving before she got herself so drunk she passed out. The unfortunate likelihood is if there was someone there hoping to rape her, he was feeding her drinks and lying about how strong they were, or slipping things in them to knock her out. That's the reason she should be on guard. The only place she bears any responsibility is in being there and letting herself be so drunk she lost control. If she's young and has never been out drinking before, then I can completely understand how easily that might happen to a young woman. Again, it's still not safe that she did that, but it does not make it her fault that she got raped for it. I would hope they would shut down that fraternity after it happened, personally.<BR/><BR/>Another alternative to going to a bishop is to go to LDS Counseling, which can be done by women. The church pays for it, so all she might need to say is, "Bishop, I want to go to a counselor. I have something I need to talk about with one that I would feel more comfortable discussing with a woman." Guess what, most bishops would gladly make the appointment. I know that even though the bishop in a nearby ward here was a psychiatrist, he sent a friend of my wife's to a female partner rather than taking her on as his own patient. He saw the conflict and sent her to the appropriate counselor he knew. Go figure. There are definitely programs out there to help people that are not male priesthood only. I just think it's amazing that you never considered any male victims in any example. Do you think it is easy for a young man to tell ANYONE he was raped? Statistics suggest that men rarely report a rape. But again, that's not the only form of abuse that was being discussed. That was my main point. You take one statement and assume it was specifically saying "rape victims, repent." I don't get that from the statement at all, personally. I can see him saying to abuse victims who stay in dangerous situations to get themselves out of it, perhaps, but that's not the same thing. I can certainly see places where someone being abused has some measure of responsibility for it (e.g., two abusers continuing to destroy each other). I just see in your own statements how much you were playing the same gender comparisons you have such a problem with. You still seem not to notice, I guess.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826309601023733396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391356573789410133.post-45753476655675241972007-05-31T23:58:00.000-07:002007-05-31T23:58:00.000-07:00As far as victims of abuse go...I can understand g...As far as victims of abuse go...<BR/><BR/>I can understand going to a bishop if you are a victim, but it's not mandatory. UJ said a male only priesthood does not allow female victims the same chance for healing.<BR/><BR/>Although a bishop can be helpful in such a situation, and I would recommend talking to him, I don't think it's mandatory is it? If you need to confess your own sins then yes.<BR/><BR/>A female rape victim should probably be talking to law enforcement and be in professional counseling. A bishop may be a nice support to lean on, but healing should be coming from family and friends. A good RS president could be there as support as well as visiting teachers if desired. <BR/><BR/>This premise that a bishop is the only one a female victim in the Church can turn to for healing I think is flawed. <BR/><BR/>You guys are right. He probably can't relate to the problem, but he can set wheels into motion to see that the victim is recieving the help and support she may need.<BR/><BR/>If I was raped I probably wouldn't go straight to the bishop about it. I don't need to confess it as a sin to him. Unless I was flat drunk at a rowdy sorority (sp) party and felt guilty for bringing it on myself. = )Bradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137736800774891196noreply@blogger.com